For
FY 2002, the Penn budget guidelines authorized
the schools to award, as salary increases,
a pool of up to 3.5% of the FY 2002 salaries
of continuing faculty members. The recommended
salary increase range was 1% to 6%, with
Deans being obligated to consult with the
Provost about any increases outside this
range. To address possible inequity in
faculty salaries, Deans were asked to "pay
particular attention to any faculty who
met standards of merit but whose salaries
for various reasons may have lagged over
the years." The Provost also reviews
the Deans' faculty salary recommendations "to
insure that raises on average reflect market
conditions in each discipline."

Faculty
salary increases by rank, averaged for
all schools except Medicine, for FY 2002
are shown below and can be compared to
the CPI, and the Penn budget guidelines
referenced above. The most recent CPI data
available are 3.7% for FY 2000 and 3.2%
in FY 2001.

Group/Condition

Average

FY2002

Full
Professors

Median

4.0%

Mean

6.0%

Associate
Profs

Median

4.0%

Mean

7.9%

Assistant
Profs

Median

4.9%

Mean

6.6%

All
Three Ranks

Mean

6.7%

NOTE:
Academic base salary percentage increases
pertain to all Penn standing faculty members
who continued in the same rank during the
periods of time reported. Excluded were
all members of the Faculty of Medicine,
all Clinician Educators from four other
schools (Dental Medicine, Veterinary Medicine,
Nursing, and Social Work) that have such
positions, and faculty members who were
promoted or entered Penn employment during
the periods of time reported.

There
are two important facts the committee would
like to highlight, which also answer one
of the concerns from last year's report:
(a) for all ranks, the FY 2002 salary increases
(on average) were considerably higher than
the CPI (albeit the previous year's) and
represent the highest amounts in the past
10 year period; and (b) the mean increases
are substantial in absolute value, and
even exceed the faculty guideline upper
bound of 6.0%. We believe that such a trend,
if it continues, will put Penn in a strong
competitive position and allow us to attract
the highest quality researchers and teachers.

The
most impressive salary increase percentages
continue to be the cumulative compound
salary increments over the 10-year period
from FY 1992 through FY 2001:

On
the whole (all ranks combined), cumulative
mean Penn faculty salary increments during
this 10-year period were about twice the
growth in the CPI at 30.9%. Furthermore,
the mean compound cumulative growth in
faculty salaries over the 10-year period
exceeded Penn's budget guidelines (43.1%)
by a considerable margin.

The
most meaningful comparisons of mean faculty
salaries at Penn with those at other universities
in the MIT salary survey sample are broken
out by academic field and rank1:

Rank
Order of mean salary levels of Penn
faculty members by five academic fields
in comparison with selected public
and private research universities
as of the Fall Term of 2001

Academic
Fields

2001-02

Full
Professor

Natural
Sciences

10/20

Soc
Sci/Human

8/20

Engineering

11/19

Architecture

5/14

Management

4/15

Associate
Profs

Natural
Sciences

4/20

Soc
Sci/Human

4/20

Engineering

6/19

Architecture

-

Management

4/15

Assistant
Profs

Natural
Sciences

7/20

Soc
Sci/Human

8/20

Engineering

12/19

Architecture

10/13

Management

5/15

NOTE:
Salary rank orders pertain to the mean
academic base salary levels of Penn standing
faculty members from the Sciences (of SAS)
and Social Sciences and Humanities (of
SAS), and the Schools of Engineering and
Applied Science (for engineering), Graduate
Fine Arts (for architecture), and Wharton
(for management). Rank orders are reported
only if the number of faculty members is
four or more.

Data
source: MIT Salary Survey.

As
a broad overall generalization for the
four schools at Penn included in the MIT
survey, as weighted by faculty size, it
is fair to conclude that Penn's mean faculty
salaries (for full and associate ranks)
were above the mean of the MIT sample as
of the Fall 2001. However, for the assistant
professor ranks, the weighted average indicates
a salary base right at the mean of the
comparison schools. While, of course, average
(or slightly above average) is not bad
if Penn has the aspirations of being average,
we hope that it is in an area in which
the administration could take a closer
look. We believe that if salaries remain
at these levels, Penn will have a hard
time attracting and retaining the best
and the brightest faculty.

SCESF
has also analyzed both the rank order salary
data and the more detailed salary data
(e.g., frequency distributions) from which
the rank orders were computed. Based on
our comprehensive study of data from the
MIT Salary Survey (including the frequency
distributions data not released for publication),
we describe below, in separate paragraphs
for each academic field and rank, the two
most salient points: (a) the competitive
position of a Penn mean salary level as
of Fall 2001 and (b) the change (if any)
in this competitive position during the
past five years.

Full
Professors in the Natural
Sciences--The mean salary
of full professors in the
natural sciences at Penn
ranked 10th of 20 universities
in the relevant MIT sample,
although 1 of the 9 schools
above Penn was very close.
Accordingly, Penn's current
competitive position within
the MIT sample is best described
as average. This position
of Penn's mean salary in
the natural sciences represents
very little difference in
comparison to last year,
and to the last five years
overall.

Full
Professors in the Social
Sciences and Humanities--The
mean salary of full professors
in the social sciences and
humanities at Penn ranked
8th of 20 universities in
the relevant MIT sample,
although 2 of the 7 universities
above Penn were less than
2% higher. Accordingly,
Penn's current competitive
position in the widely distributed
MIT sample in this academic
field is best described
as somewhat above average.
This competitive position
of Penn's mean salary in
the social sciences and
humanities has been stable
during the past five years,
and may be improving slightly.

Full
Professors in Engineering--The
mean salary of Penn's engineering
professors ranked 11th of
19 universities in the relevant
MIT sample, although 3 of
the 10 universities above
Penn were less than 2% higher.
The mean engineering salaries
in the MIT sample are not
dispersed widely (all falling
within 15% of the median),
and have become even more
tightly bunched during the
past five years. The importance
of this is that the Penn
mean salary, though average,
is still reasonably close
to those above. Nonetheless,
the current competitive
position of Penn's mean
salary in engineering represents
a slight decline in its
competitive position since
1996-97.

Full
Professors of Architecture--The
mean salary of Penn's GSFA
professors was competitive
in that it ranked 5th of
14 universities in the relevant
MIT sample. However, two
of the four universities
with higher salaries exceeded
Penn's level by a considerable
amount. In comparison with
the entire sample of 14
universities reporting data
for architecture, the mean
GSFA salary leads a narrowly
disbursed middle group.
In general, the current
competitiveness of the GSFA
mean salary represents a
noticeable2 improvement
since 1996-97.

Full
Professors of Management--The
mean salary of Penn's Wharton
professors ranked 4th of
15 universities in the relevant
MIT sample. During the past
five years, the dispersion
of mean salaries has declined
noticeably--the significance
of which is that the Wharton
mean salary in the MIT sample
is nonetheless close to
the majority of those above
(i.e., the mean Wharton
salary is reasonably competitive
with most of the highest
offered elsewhere). The
current Wharton mean salary
represents a noticeable
improvement in its competitive
position since 1996-97.
However, one point of concern
is the drop in size from
18 academic institutions
in 2000-2001 to 15 in 2001-2002
in the MIT data. As it appears
that at least one of these
may be from the high end,
this brings into question
the stability of these findings.
We hope that the amount
of fluctuation in the comparison
sample does not continue
at this pace.

Associate
Professors in the Natural
Sciences--The mean salary
of associate professors
in the natural sciences
at Penn ranked 4th of 20
universities in the relevant
MIT sample, although 1 of
the 3 universities above
Penn were less than 2% higher.
The competitive position
of the Penn mean salary
in the natural sciences
appears in good shape, and
has improved slightly over
the last 5 years.

Associate
Professors in the Social
Sciences and Humanities--
The mean salary of associate
professors in the social
sciences and humanities
at Penn ranked 4th out of
20 universities in the relevant
MIT sample. Accordingly,
Penn's current competitive
position in the MIT sample
in this academic field is
well above average, and,
in fact, has improved considerably
since FY 1996-1997.

Associate
Professors in Engineering--The
mean salary of associate
professors in engineering
at Penn ranked 6th of 19
universities in the relevant
MIT sample, with 1 of the
5 universities above Penn
less than 2% higher. Accordingly,
Penn's current competitive
position in the MIT sample
in this academic field is
adequate. The competitive
position of the Penn mean
salary in engineering has
been reasonably stable since
1996-97.

Associate
Professors of Management--The
mean salary of associate
professors at Penn's Wharton
School ranked 4th of 15
universities in the relevant
MIT sample, although one
of the 3 universities above
Penn was virtually identical.
Accordingly, Penn's current
competitive position in
the MIT sample in this academic
field is somewhat above
average. The current Wharton
mean salary represents a
noticeable improvement in
its competitive position
since 1996-97. The one area
of concern is that the MIT
sample now only represents
15 schools for associate
professors, down from 18
in previous years. We do
not believe that this instability
in the comparability of
the samples negates the
statement regarding Penn's
competitiveness. However,
we should try and keep this
sample as consistent as
possible.

Assistant
Professors in the Natural
Sciences--The mean salary
of assistant professors
in the natural sciences
at Penn ranked 9th of 20
universities in the relevant
MIT sample, although 2 of
the 8 universities above
Penn are less than 2% higher.
Even so, Penn's current
competitive position within
the MIT sample is best described
as average because the Penn
salary was very close to
the median of the sample.
The current competitive
position of the Penn mean
salary in the natural sciences
has been stable since 1996-97.

Assistant
Professors in the Social
Sciences and Humanities--The
mean salary of assistant
professors in the social
sciences and humanities
at Penn ranked 9th of 22
universities in the relevant
MIT sample, although one
of the 8 universities above
Penn was less than 2% higher.
Penn's current competitive
position in the MIT sample
in this academic field has
improved from considerably
below average in FY 1999-2000
to average. In the longer
term, the competitive position
of the Penn mean salary
in the social sciences and
humanities was about the
same as in 1996-97.

Assistant
Professors in Engineering--The
mean salary of assistant
professors in engineering
at Penn ranked 13th of 19
universities in the relevant
MIT sample, although 4 of
the 12 universities above
Penn were less than 2% higher.
Because mean salaries are
tightly bunched at the lower
end of the distribution,
Penn's mean salary in this
academic field is less than
3% below the median. However,
the competitive position
of the Penn mean salary
in engineering has improved
noticeably since FY 1999-2000
and was reasonably close
to that of 1996-97.

Assistant
Professors of Architecture--The
mean salary of assistant
professors in Penn's GSFA
ranked 10th of 13 universities
in the relevant MIT sample,
although 1 of the 9 universities
above Penn was less than
2% higher. Thus, Penn's
mean salary in this academic
field is not particularly
competitive in the MIT sample.
In addition, the competitive
position of the current
GSFA mean salary has declined
noticeably since 1996-97.

Assistant
Professors of Management--The
mean salary of assistant
professors in Penn's Wharton
School ranked 5th of 15
universities in the relevant
MIT sample, although one
of the 4 universities above
Penn was less than 2% higher.
Accordingly, Penn's current
competitive position in
the MIT sample in this academic
field is somewhat above
average. The competitive
position of this Wharton
mean salary has improved
noticeably since 1996-97.

Comparisons
with Peer Universities of Full Professors
Salaries Using AAUP Survey Data

The
relative standings of mean salaries of
Penn full professors for academic year
2001-2002 is presented below3.
The order of listing of universities was
determined by the magnitude of mean salaries
of full professors (from high to low) for
the academic year. Next, the difference
between a comparison university's mean
salary and Penn's mean salary was computed
as a percentage of Penn's mean salary.

Full
professor salary comparisons: Percentage
differences in mean academic base
salary levels of Penn full professors
in comparison with salary levels of
full professors at a sample of comparable
research universities for Academic
Year 2000-2001

Full
Professor Salaries Percentage Differences
by Year

University *

2000-01

Harvard

+13.1%

Princeton

2.9%

Yale

+2.5%

Stanford

+2.3%

Chicago

+0.9%

Pennsylvania

$128.0K

NYU

-1.3%

Columbia

-2.0%

MIT

-3.8%

Northwestern

-4.5%

Duke

-7.2%

U.C.
(Berkeley)

-9.5%

UCLA

-9.6%

Michigan

-14.9%

Carnegie-Mellon

-15.0%

Virginia

-15.9%

N.C.
(Chapel Hill)

-19.2%

Texas
(Austin)

-22.8%

MN
(Twin Cities)

-23.8%

NOTE:
Penn academic base mean salaries are based
on standing faculty members at the rank
of professor. Excluded are all members
of the Faculty of Medicine and all standing
faculty members who are appointed as Clinician
Educators from four other schools that
have such positions (Dental Medicine, Veterinary
Medicine, Nursing, and Social Work). Data
source: AAUP Salary Surveys.

*Universities
are ordered from highest to lowest mean
salaries for full professors as of 2000-2001.
For each year reported, the difference
between the Penn mean salary and the mean
salary for a comparison university was
computed as a percentage of the Penn salary.

After
reviewing the data, the committee noted
that mean salaries for full professors
at Penn gradually have become more competitive
during the past 15 years. In addition,
the percentage advantage of salaries at
Harvard, Stanford, and Yale over Penn have
decreased substantially during this period
of time, while only Chicago gained in percentage
advantage, although it declined in 2001-2002.
In addition, for all the schools below
Penn as of 2001-2002, each has fallen further
behind Penn. This implies, overall, a good
degree of competitiveness on Penn's part.
The committee would also like to note that
while Penn's competitive position in this
respect is strong in general, aggregated
salary data such as these do not reveal
which schools, and departments within schools,
may provide mean salaries that are particularly
competitive or that may lag behind their
competition. Therefore, SCESF continues
to seek comparative salary data that is
specific to each of Penn's schools.

Variability
in Average Salary Levels by Rank

Trends
in mean faculty salaries for the last three
years are shown by rank below4 for
all schools combined, except Medicine5.
Such data give the crudest perspective
on rank differences in salary, however,
because of aggregation biases across schools.
For example, one might expect a considerably
larger difference between mean assistant
and associate professor salaries. The modest
difference might be accounted for by the
facts that the Law School has no associate
professors (a fact that might decrease
the observed associate professor mean)
and the Wharton School has a considerably
higher percentage of assistant professors
than is typical of other schools (a fact
that could increase the observed assistant
professor mean).

NOTE:
Mean academic base salary levels are based
on all Penn standing faculty members who
continued in the same rank in FY 2000,
FY 2001, and FY 2002 from their respective
prior years. Excluded were all members
of the Faculty of Medicine, all Clinician
Educators from four other schools (Dental
Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Nursing,
and Social Work) that have such positions,
and faculty members who were promoted effective
for each year reported.

As
discussed in the prior section, percentage
salary increases for assistant professor,
in the aggregate, have been considerably
greater than for full professors during
the past three years. This trend was also
seen when the committee reviewed the weighted
ratio of professor to assistant professor
salaries, which has declined year-by-year
since 1998-99. Thus, full professor salaries
are losing the internal "competition" for
salary increase resources within Penn,
as well as losing ground over the same
period of time in the external competition
with other universities in the MIT salary
survey sample.

Status of Committee
Recommendations Submitted in 2000-01
and New Recommendations

Below
is a progress report of recommendations
made in FY 2000-2001 for development of
faculty compensation policy and procedures.
These recommendations are presented below,
along with the responses of Provost Barchi.
SCESF's comments and subsequent developments
are also included. In addition, we include
a set of new issues to discuss.

1. Salary
Competitiveness Issue. The
need to attain and maintain faculty
salary levels that are highly competitive
with salaries provided by peer universities,
while simultaneously sustaining other
components of university operations
essential to providing high quality
instruction, research, and service.

SCESF
Recommendations:

a. Apparently,
mean faculty salaries in several academic
fields included in the MIT Salary
Survey have fallen behind the level
at which Penn ordinarily competes.
If these four faculty groups are as
meritorious, on the whole, as comparable
faculty groups at Penn with more competitive
mean salary levels, it is recommended
that priority be placed on increasing
mean salaries to Penn's competitive
level of the groups that have fallen
behind.

These
areas are:

(1)
Full professors in: Engineering

Provost
Response:We will
examine this situation and recommend
changes if they are warranted.
In particular, if there are exceptionally
productive faculty members whose
salaries are lagging those salaries
should be brought up. On the
other hand, we do not feel that
resources should be invested
simply to increase mean salary
levels without individual justification.

SCESF
Response:We
thank and agree with the Provost that
this is not a blanket request to increase
all full professors' salaries in Engineering;
yet, a point to make sure is communicated
with appropriate administration at
the school of Engineering.

(2) Assistant
professors in:

Natural
Sciences, Engineering & Architecture

Provost
Response:We
concur with this area of focus.
In general salaries of assistant
professors should reflect the
need to attract and keep the
very best young faculty members.
If we are losing out in either
of these respects we will improve
our offers and counter-offers
in these areas.

SCESF
Response:Although
likely beyond the role of the
SCESF, this suggests (if not
already done) tracking of offers
made to assistant professors
and their acceptance rate, to
provide a benchmark as to our
competitive position.

b. Even
though priority should be placed on
regaining Penn's competitive level
in the academic fields identified
above, it is recommended that equal
priority be given to recognizing in
advance and rewarding with salary
increases distinguished performance
of faculty members who choose not
to seek, or use, attractive offers
of external appointment to negotiate
salary increases.

Provost
Response:We strongly
agree with this recommendation
and have discussed this on numerous
occasions with the deans. We
hope that deans and department
chairs are already sensitive
to this issue. We will stress
the need for attention to it
when we transmit salary information.

SCESF
Response:We
appreciate the Provost's sincerity
on what we feel is a crucial matter.

2. Salary
Equity Issue. The need to identify
and eliminate inequity among individual
faculty salaries by rank within departments
(and schools organized as single departments).

SCESF
Comment:

As
reviewed in this SCESF's Annual Report
for 2001-02, a considerable percentage
of faculty members (18%) received salary
increases for FY 2001 that were below the
growth in the CPI (Phil.) for the 12 months
ending June 2001. Moreover, this percentage
was higher than in the prior year (9%).
Consistent with this higher percentage
was a general decline across schools in
the first quartile salary increase for
full and associate professors. It thus
appears likely that some faculty members
who have performed at least at a satisfactory
level have received salary increases less
than growth in the CPI. If so, this represents
an effective reduction in salary in terms
of purchasing power--a circumstance that
is clearly inequitable given that the overall
salary increase percentage for each school
was well in excess of the growth in the
CPI.

SCESF
Recommendations:

a. In
view of the quantitative facts identified
above, it is recommended that further
consideration be given by the Provost
and the Deans to eliminating, or decreasing
in frequency, the assumed inequitable
practice of awarding salary increases
below the annual growth in the CPI
(Phil.) to faculty members who have
performed at least at a satisfactory
level. In making this recommendation,
we realize that the feasibility of
awarding increases to faculty members
with satisfactory performance at least
as great as growth in the CPI depends
on the difference between funds available
for salary increases and the CPI growth
percentage--with the larger the positive
difference, the greater the feasibility
of providing salary increases of at
least the CPI growth percentage.

Provost
Response:It
is certainly reasonable, in principle,
to try to provide salary increases
at least at the level of the
increase in the CPI to faculty
members who perform at a level
that is at least satisfactory.
However, the need to provide
rewards to the most productive
faculty members, as requested
by this committee (see above),
to improve starting salaries,
and to address inequities which
develop over time, coupled with
limitations on overall University,
school, or departmental resources,
can make the achievement of this
goal difficult in some years.
In fact, average salary increases
for Penn faculty over the past
decade have run well above the
annual increase in CPI.

SCESF
Response:We
wholeheartedly agree with the Provost
that Penn's average salary increases
have ledthe CPI dramatically over
the past decade (Table 1), and that
the ability to manage micro-level
year to year increases versus the
CPI is difficult and agreeably questionable
as a goal.

b. Therefore
it is further recommended that, for
each faculty member who has performed
at least at a satisfactory level during
the prior year but who is awarded
a salary increase that is less than
the most recent data available about
the annual percentage growth in the
Philadelphia CPI (e.g., from January
through December of the prior year),
the faculty member should be provided
by the relevant academic administrator
with the following information:

that
his/her performance has
been at least satisfactory,
and

the
circumstances that caused
the percentage increase
below the CPI growth percentage.

Provost
Response:The
salary letter that faculty members
receive should include an explicit
assessment of their recent work.
That letter should also indicate
why the salary level has been
set in a particular way.

SCESF
Response:We
agree. Our question is how many of
Penn's faculty actually receive such
an explicit assessment? If the SCESF
committee members are representative
of such a fraction, the answer is
not high. We therefore request that
the Provost continue to request that
such feedback be provided.

SCESF
Comment:

The
Committee hopes that this recommendation
will be implemented for salary increases
decided during the Spring Term 2003, and
that, as may be appropriate, this information
will be provided to individual faculty
members about their performance at the
time each is notified of their annual salary
increase.

3. One
further request, which arose out of the
SCESF meeting to discuss this report, is
that in Tables 6, 7, and 8 we do not report
quartiles for schools by rank where the
sample size is 10 or less (as quartiles
would be based on two people). While we
agree wholeheartedly with this, we would
still like to see a measure of dispersion
for these schools by rank. Accordingly,
we recommend that in future years, the
committee is provided a two or three year
average for those schools in which we normally
would not be able to report a 1st or 3rd
quartile.

Provost
Response:We will
do this in cases where it is
feasible.

SCESF
Response:Good,
and in future reports we will make
sure to denote those quartiles that
are based on some combination of current
and historical data.

4. This
committee would like to laud the School
of Medicine, basic sciences, for agreeing
to participate in this year's report for
the first time. We would like this trend
to continue, and request that the provost
do everything possible to insure this.
In addition, we want to make sure that
no "conditions" are required
for this request; that is, the school of
medicine is asked to comply to provide
salary data as are all other schools.

Provost
Response:We will
do this.

SCESF
Response:Thank
you. Also, as we state on page 14,
we hope that the School of Medicine,
basic sciences, will also start providing
the SCESF external comparison data
that we believe exists. This will
allow us the opportunity to provide
them the same oversight we provide
to our schools and departments.

5. One
recommendation that came out of this committee,
was the possibility of having a shorter
version of this report (say 10 pages or
so) for general consumption, and a more
detailed version (like this report) that
is provided on-line for the persons wanting
details. We believe that this would lead
to a wider dissemination of this information
to the faculty at large, and we hope that
the provost would work with next year's
committee to determine what might appear
in this so-called "executive summary
SCESF report".

Provost
Response:We
agree that this would be useful.

SCESF
Response:Good.
The 2002-2003 SCESF report will likely
contain a shorter version to be published
in the Almanac with a longer
version available online. We hope
that this will increase Almanac readership
and get all faculty involved in SCESF
issues.

Note
that you are currently reading this executive
summary, and it was decided to do it this
year, after the provost and SCESF had discussed
this point.

6. One
further request that came out of the SCESF
meeting, was the possibility of having
the provost meet with the SCESF prior to
setting salary guidelines for the next
fiscal year. As we understand such decisions
usually take place in mid-late Spring semester.
We would hope that such a meeting could
take place early in the Spring semester.
Our belief is that this would add to the
comfort level that the SCESF had about
the decisions that were made regarding
salary setting policy.

Provost
Response:We are
willing to meet with SCESF in
the spring.

SCESF
Response:We
look forward to that meeting.

7. We
make a recommendation for next year's report
that the SCESF report both sets of data
for Nursing (nine month salaries, no stipends,
and no clinical income) as well as what
is currently reported so that we can track
both sets of information. We request that
the Provost assist us in collecting this
data from the nursing school going forward.

Provost
Response:Tracking
both sets of data for the School
of Nursing would have little
value.

SCESF
Response:We
recognize the Provost's concern that
looking only at nine month salaries
could lead to micro-managing of one's
total compensation and hence may have
a negative impact.

8. As
it has been over three years, it was the
1998-99 report, in which faculty benefits
were looked at in comparison to our peer
institutions, we request that the Provost's
office provide this information to the
SCESF for year 2002-2003 in accordance
with what was done in 1998-99. Furthermore,
going forward, we believe that this should
be looked at roughly every five years if
not more frequently.

Provost
Response:We agree
that this is a timely request.
We will work with the committee
to carry out such a study

SCESF
Response: Good.We
hope this can be one of the points
of discussion for our spring meeting.

9. One
of the concerns of the SCESF is the low
relative spread in salaries at the full
professor level, which may indicate a problem
in attracting faculty at the upper end
of the scale. This is evidenced in Table
10, in which the spread in full professor
salaries as a ratio to median salary is
lower than that for assistant and associate
professor. We would like to request that
the Provost continue monitoring this situation
and advice the committee as to what efforts
are being made to allow Penn's "top
end" to stay competitive.

Provost
Response:In general,
we fully agree that salaries
should be determined by performance
and not only by time in rank.
We, too, would expect that this
would lead to a broad but acceptable
spread in full professors' salaries.
We will examine this issue. However,
it is not obvious that the spread
in salaries has provided any
serious obstacle to offering
competitive salaries to excellent
external candidates for positions
at the full professor rank, or
to responding to competitive
offers in senior retention cases.

SCESF
Response:We
thank the Provost for stating that
this is a matter he will look into.

10. Issue
Concerning Data on the Competitiveness
of Faculty Salaries not Included in the
MIT Survey. The need to seek, or compile,
evidence about the competitiveness of faculty
salaries at schools not included in the
MIT survey.

SCESF
Recommendations:In
accordance with the agreement
with the Provost in 1999 and
2000, it is recommended that
the Provost continue his efforts
to secure data on the competitiveness
of faculty salaries in Penn's
schools not included in the MIT
Salary Survey or the surveys
for veterinary medicine and dental
medicine.

Provost
Response:We will
try to obtain such data.

SCESF
Response:We
appreciate it, as it will allow us
to make a more meaningful set of comparisons.

B.
Final Summary:

While
the Penn faculty have remained equally
competitive in most areas, and have gained
in some (and thankfully lost ground in
few), the salary increases with respect
to the CPI is the great message from this
report. We are concerned about the large
number of Penn faculty who received raises
below the CPI in the 2001-2002 year, and
furthermore have 5 year average raises
below the CPI. We believe that an explicit
policy needs to be developed such that:

(a) when
the faculty midpoint salary raise
guideline is given (e.g. 3.5%) to
the schools, its level will be set
in accordance with actual or projected
CPI,

(b) faculty
members who receive raises below the CPI,
or have raises below the 5 year compounded
CPI are informed as such,

(c) Department
chairs/Deans should be provided information
regarding faculty members who have received
raises below the CPI in the past,

(d) We
recommend that department chairs/deans
be provided information as to the raise
that would be required to bring each faculty
member's salary to at least the minimum
CPI growth at the time they are setting
salaries.

Provost
Response:Department
chairs and others who set faculty
salaries should have direct access
to information on faculty salary
history and salary tracking relative
to the CPI. This information
should be taken into consideration,
along with a variety of factors
such as individual performance
and school and University financial
position, in determining salaries
for the coming year. The salary
letter that a faculty member
receives should certainly include
an explicit assessment of their
recent work and indicate why
the salary level has been set
in a particular way. However,
a selective focus on maintaining
minimum salary increases at the
level of the CPI, given the constraints
of the overall resources often
available for salary increases,
has a collateral negative impact
on resources required to keep
the best faculty from looking
elsewhere, to recruit the best
new faculty, or to reduce the
salary inequities that develop
as faculty members' productivity
changes.

SCESF
Response:We
agree that the overall impact of targeting
all salaries towards the CPI could
have a collateral negative impact.
Our hope is that this information
is provided to Department Chairs and
Deans so that the CPI, as well as
other criterion, can be used as guiding
tools (not rigid constraints) to their
decision making.

We
hope the Provost and the Administration
considers these recommendations.

Members
of the 2001-2002 Senate Committee
on the Economic Status of the Faculty

1See
Table Four (4) in the Economic Status
of the Faculty Report for years 1998-99
through 2001-02.

2The
word noticeable is used here
to refer to a change of 3% to 5% in the
salary data over time whereas the word considerable is
used to describe a change of 6%, or more,
in the salary data over time. Salary data
that change only 0% to 2% over time are
regarded as stable.

3See
Table 5 in the Economic Status of the Faculty
Report for years 1986-87 through 2001-2002.

4See
Table 9 in the Economic Status of the Faculty
Report for the complete table.

5The
mean salary figures for full professors
for 1999-00 are higher than those recorded
in Table 5 (see full report) which are
drawn from AAUP reports. This discrepancy
is a product of two AAUP policies: first,
to exclude faculty members with decanal
titles (which will reduce the AAUP mean);
second, to include all faculty members
in a rank (including those newly appointed
to a rank) whereas Table 9 data are limited
to faculty members who continued in the
same rank from the prior year (a difference
that will also reduce the AAUP mean).